Combine the fillet and chamfer tools

[DRoam]

Why do the fillet and chamfer dialog boxes look so different? Fillets and chamfers are extremely closely-related features. They're almost the same thing. As such, there's no reason that one of these tools should have capabilities that the other doesn't. And there's no reason they shouldn't be interchangeable.

If the two tools were combined, all of the following would be possible:

• You could instantly change a fillet to a chamfer or vice versa (this Idea)
• Drawings could recognize fillet/chamfer features like they do holes (this Idea), automatically annotate them, and automatically update the annotations when fillets are changed to chamfers or vice versa
• Fillet/chamfer annotations in Drawings could have a quantity note (this Idea), which would indicate the number of fillets/chamfers of the same size in that Drawing View or Feature
• Chamfers could be mirrored and patterned like fillets can (this Idea)
• There would no longer be some functions that only fillets can do or some functions that only chamfers can do (these Ideas: 1, 2, 3, 4)

All of the suggestions linked to above are great Ideas, and all of them would be made possible to their full potential by combining the fillet and chamfer tools.

Until the fillet and chamfer tools are interchangeable and share all of the same functionalities, their usability will always be stunted and we will have to waste unnecessary time rebuilding features and recreating drawing annotations.

[Andrew2803]

Hi @DRoam,

Great idea. Let me complement it with an other thought:

I'd like to see at Chamfer tool a "TO" option for suit one to an existing one either!!!

Corresponding flanges may want to use the same pattern as it is on the other ones...

[DRoam]

Hi @Andrew2803, great idea! That's another function that would be great to have for both fillets and chamfers. I'd definitely recommend posting that as a new Idea. This post is specifically for the "combine" aspect of fillet/chamfer tool improvements. But like I said, it paves the way for enhancements like the one you just suggested to reach their full potential and not be limited to just one tool.

If you do create an Idea for that, definitely post a link to it here. If I could modify my original post (please see this Idea) I'd add a link to it in the Idea itself 😕 

[guido_66]

This idea about negative radius (or inverse) fillets should also be included:

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-ideas/add-a-quot-negative-quot-radius-for-clearance/idi-p/533...

[swalton]

I would like to change the type of chamfer or fillet after the feature creation.  In IV 2014, if I create a fillet, I'm stuck with the type (edge, full round, etc) I have to delete the fillet and make a new one if I need to make a change.

[mrichard]

Really would like to see that fillet, chamfer and BOM balloon quantity note added in to the drawings. Combining the fillet and chamfer tools is a Great Ideal.  

[DRoam]

I'm seeking some feedback from everyone who supports this idea.

Background:

It's possible the development on this could be sped up considerably if only simple chamfers (normal 45° chamfers) were combined into the Fillet tool, while complex chamfers (Distance+Angle and Two-distance chamfers) remained in the Chamfer tool. We would get all of the benefits described in the original Idea, but only for simple chamfers. To change a complex chamfer to a fillet, or a fillet to a complex chamfer, you would have to delete and re-create the feature.

Question:

Would you be in favor of narrowing the implementation as described above in order to get the new functionality (combined fillet and simple chamfer) much sooner?

[DRoam]

My opinion on the question above: Definitely yes.

I think the vast majority of cases where fillets need to be switched to chamfers, or vice-versa, involve simple 45° chamfers. I think it's probably rare for a two-distance chamfer to be switched to a fillet, or a fillet switched to a two-distance chamfer.

In addition, the Fillet tool allows creating multiple operations in a single feature, and complex chamfer operations involve much more, well, complexity than would be easy to manage with more than one inside a single feature. So Distance+Angle and Two-distance chamfers are probably better left as separate, individual features anyway.

[mrichard]

yes I would be in favor of narrowing the implementation as described above.

Please add the quantity function also. It would be very helpful is it was the same as the quantity function currently used on holes.

[andrewdroth]

This makes a ton of sense. If I have 13 edges selected for a fillet and want to change them to a chamfer it'd be nice if I didn't have to re-select them.

[tyas.swinnen]

This really needs to be implemented...